RESUMO
This study observed the antibody response and adverse events of AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination in dialysis patients. A prospective cohort study was conducted in E-Da Healthcare Group hospitals between 1 July and 30 November 2021. Patients receiving hemodialysis (HD, n = 204) or peritoneal dialysis (PD, n = 116) were enrolled alongside healthy subjects (control, n = 34). Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 RBD IgG antibodies were measured before the first vaccination (T0), four to six weeks afterwards (T1), one week before the second dose (T2), and four to six weeks afterwards (T3). Adverse events were recorded one week after each dose. The positive IgG rates in the HD (T1: 72%; T2: 62%) and PD (T1: 69%; T2: 70%) groups were lower than the control group (T1: 97%; T2: 91%), with lower median antibody titers. At T3, the positive antibody response rates (HD: 94%; PD: 93%; control: 100%) and titers were similar. Titers were higher after the second dose in all groups. Adverse events were more severe after the first dose and less common with HD than PD or controls. Dialysis patients exhibited lower antibody responses than controls after the first dose of the AZD1222 vaccine but achieved similar responses after consecutive vaccination. Age, health status, two vaccine doses, and alcohol consumption may influence antibody levels.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: HbA1c is the gold standard of diabetic surveys to monitor the long-term glycemic control. Anemia is cited as a major confounder to HbA1c analysis; however, the effect of RBC indices influences on HbA1c analysis is not known. The aim of this study is to compare ion-exchange high-performance liquid chromatography, and capillary electrophoresis to evaluate the influence of RBC parameters on HbA1c values in anemia patients. METHODS: Erythrocyte parameters were collected from the 307 randomly selected specimens from the Hematology division. HbA1c was measured on the same specimen using Tosoh G8 and Capillarys 2 Flex Piercing on the same day. RESULTS: There is acceptable concordance between the results of capillary electrophoresis and HPLC methods (R2 = 0.953, p < 0.001). However, significant differences in HbA1c value between the two assay methods were obtained in the patients with abnormal RBC indices (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated HbA1c differences were significantly different in the patients with low Hb (≤ 8 g/dL) and high RDW-CV (≥ 13.7%). It is suggested that in the analysis of HbA1c level in anemia patients, simultaneous testing for hemoglobin level is needed. In addition, development of a new reference value of HBA1c for patients with severe anemia should be considered.
